On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 09:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:31:34AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 09:58 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:57:36 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I reverted these three patches that introduced and enabled a
"peer"
> > > attribute for type='ethernet' interface <ip> elements prior
to the
> > > release of 1.3.4 with the intent of fixing/re-posting them after
> > > release, but forgot until today:
> > >
> > >
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg01995.html
> > >
> > > I have patches for most of the bugs, but the one problem that still
> > > doesn't have resolution is the naming of the "peer"
attribute. In my
> > > opinion, having the two address attributes named "address" and
"peer"
> > > makes it ambiguous which address is for the guest side and which for the
> > > host side (especially since the attribute that has been named
"peer"
> > > would be set to the "address" in the netlink command, and the
attribute
> > > named "address" would be set to "peer" in the netlink
command :-O).
> > >
> > > Since "address" is an existing attribute, and already used for
the guest
> > > side IP address in lxc type='bridge' interfaces, it must remain
as-is.
> > > In order to make it obvious that the new address is for the host side of
> > > the tap (or veth pair in the case of lxc), I propose calling it either
> > > "host", or "hostAddress", e.g:
> > >
> > > <ip address='192.168.123.43' host='192.168.123.1'
prefix='25'/>
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > <ip address='192.168.123.4'
hostAddress='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/>
> >
> > IMO "host" is better. After all it's an attribute of
"ip" element so
> > it's obvious we're talking about addresses here.
>
> I like "hostAddress" better myself :)
>
> Is there any real chance the "prefix" attribute will need to be specified
> for the host as well? Because in that case we would clearly have to go
> with "hostPrefix", and using "host" instead of
"hostAddress" would look
> quite ugly.
Both IP addresses are required to be in the same subnet and thus have
the same prefix
I see.
My vote for "hostAddress" still stands though: since the XML describes
the guest, all unqualified attributes refer to it by default, ie. "address"
can in a way be considered a shorthand for "guestAddress".
Using "hostAddress" fits nicely with that, but "host" IMHO
doesn't.
--
Andrea Bolognani
Software Engineer - Virtualization Team